design_login

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that it opens a browser (Chrome) and reports an account, which is a significant behavioral trait not captured in any structured fields. However, it omits details like whether this requires a desktop environment, side effects on existing sessions, or what happens if Chrome is not installed. With no annotations, the description partially fills the transparency gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('Open Chrome...') and completes with the secondary action ('report...'). Every word is necessary and there is no wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with no output schema, the description communicates the core function but lacks details on the format of the reported account (e.g., string, JSON), potential user interaction required, or failure modes. It is minimally complete but could be more informative.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially covered (100%). The description does not need to add parameter details. Per guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4, and the description meets that without superfluous information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool opens Chrome for a specific login page (claude.ai/design) and reports the active account. It uses strong verbs 'Open' and 'report', and the resource is explicitly a login operation, which distinctly separates it from sibling tools focused on design CRUD.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like design_get or design_list. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering (e.g., must be called before design operations), or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.